argument56 0610G同主题写作第八期,小弟快考了，请资深人士给拼个分

hudifengUID: 189776

题目：ARGUMENT56 - Collectors prize the ancient life-size clay statues of human figures made on Kali Island but have long wondered how the Kalinese artists were able to depict bodies with such realistic precision. Since archeologists have recently discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali, we can now conclude that the ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies, not sculpting tools and techniques, to create these statues. This discovery explains why Kalinese miniature statues were abstract and entirely different in style: molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It also explains why few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found. In light of this development, collectors should expect the life-size sculptures to decrease in value and the miniatures to increase in value.
字数：533          用时：0:30:00          日期：2006-8-3

The arguer contends that life-size sculptures found in Kali Island are sure to decrease in value, while miniatures found in Kali Island are on the contrary. To uphold his conclusion, he cites a recent finding of molds of human to assume that these sculptures were sculpted by molds and not the sculpting tools. Further more, he also concludes that miniatures are not sculpted by molds through the fact that miniature statues are quite different from life-like statues. At first glance, this argument seems sound, but a more careful examination reveals that it commits several fallacies and ultimately it remains unconvincing.

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince me that ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies only because of the discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali. The archeologists haven't proven that these human heads and hands are used for the purpose of molds. Perhaps, these molds are used for sculpting other figurers that are not found by us, or totally destroyed. In addition, no such compatible human figurers that match these molds are found. Further more, even if these molds are used for sculpting human figures, they are just hands and hands that account for just a small part of human body. If so, the majority part of figure may be sculpted, while not molded. All of these possibilities render the arguer's assumption that life-like sculptures are molded suspicious.

Further more, basing on the mere fact that the two kinds of figures are quite abstract and entirely different in style, it is presumptuous to conclude that molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It is common sense that no matter how abstract and entirely different in style of between the life-size figures and miniatures, they share a common trait that they are originated from the prototype of human. Thus, if none parts of these miniatures that matches or looks like the human, these miniatures are not human status at all. Consequently, it is theoretically possible that the miniatures have something in common that can be molded in the same appearance. At the same time, the mere fact that few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found is not equal to the fact that ancient Kalinese didn't use or seldom use sculpting tools. Due to the long time of history, these tools can hardly be preserved even if they were frequently used for sculpting at that time. The possibility that both life-size statuses and miniatures are molded greatly undermines the arguer's conclusion.

Granted that these life-like figures are mold as a whole, the collectors' interest in which aspect of these figures is still vague, and perhaps the arguer arbitrarily apply his own value judgment to all the collectors. It is highly possible that these collectors attribute the value in these figurers to such aspects as aesthetics, history values, and so on. Thus, how these figures are build is relatively not so important to collectors.

All in all, this argument is logically flawed in above mentioned aspects. To better strength his viewpoint, he should make a concrete investigation to verify how life-like figures and miniatures are built. Further more, he should find the exact and of most concerns of these collectors and give a more reliable conclusion toward the value of these sculptures.

望各位大侠给小弟指点，谢谢，在此谢谢

[ 本帖最后由 hudifeng 于 2006-8-3 10:48 编辑 ]

fenghua9801UID: 2191885

不是资深人士可以看不？？

我也快考了

咱们相互改一下吧

fenghua9801UID: 2191885

The arguer contends that life-size sculptures found in Kali Island are sure to decrease in value, while miniatures found in Kali Island[found in Kali Island这个感觉多余了] are on the contrary. To uphold his conclusion, he cites a recent finding of molds of human to assume that these sculptures were sculpted[这个动词好像有点问题，模具是不能用来雕刻的啊] by molds and not the sculpting tools. Further more, he also concludes that miniatures are not sculpted by molds through the fact that miniature statues are quite different from life-like statues. At first glance, this argument seems sound, but a more careful examination reveals that it commits several fallacies and ultimately it remains unconvincing.
[这个开头是参考孙远的吧，关于这个restate的问题可以看一下这个帖子]

In the first place, the arguer fails to convince me that ancient Kalinese artists used molds of actual bodies only because of the discovered molds of human heads and hands on Kali. The archeologists haven't[正式的文体还是用have not 吧] proven that these human heads and hands are used for the purpose of molds. Perhaps, these molds are used for sculpting other figurers that are not found by us, or totally destroyed. In addition, no such compatible human figurers that match these molds are found[这个从何得知，题干中也没说啊]. Further more, even if these molds are used for sculpting human figures, they are just hands and hands[heads] that account for just a small part of human body. If so, the majority part of figure may be sculpted, while not molded. All of these possibilities render the arguer's assumption that life-like sculptures are molded suspicious.

Further more[这个词用的好频繁啊～], basing on the mere fact that the two kinds of figures are quite abstract and entirely different in style [ 这里有问题，题干说的是小雕像很抽象，你怎么说成了两个都很抽象了？？], it is presumptuous to conclude that molds could only be used for life-size sculptures. It is common sense that no matter how abstract and entirely different in style of between the life-size figures and miniatures[同样的问题，different可以说，但是abstract不可以的], they share a common trait that they are originated from the prototype of human. Thus, if none parts of these miniatures that matches or looks like the human, these miniatures are not human status at all[个人认为文中默认的就是大小雕像都是人型的，要不为什么在风格上不同呢？这两句感觉带有你自己主观的观点了]. Consequently, it is theoretically possible that the miniatures have something in common that can be molded in the same appearance. At the same time, the mere fact that few ancient Kalinese sculpting tools have been found is not equal to the fact that ancient Kalinese didn't[did not] use or seldom use sculpting tools. Due to the long time of history, these tools can[换成might 是不是好一点] hardly be preserved even if they were frequently used for sculpting at that time. The possibility that both life-size statuses and miniatures are molded greatly undermines the arguer's conclusion.

Granted that these life-like figures are mold[ed] as a whole, the collectors' interest in which aspect of these figures is still vague, and perhaps the arguer arbitrarily apply his own value judgment to all the collectors. It is highly possible that these collectors attribute the value in these figurers to such aspects as aesthetics, history values, and so on. Thus, how these figures are build is relatively not so important to collectors.
[直接说收藏家可能更喜欢大雕像，不喜欢小的岂不是更好，感觉有点绕了]

All in all, this argument is logically flawed in above mentioned aspects. To better strength his viewpoint, he should make a concrete investigation to verify how life-like figures and miniatures are built. Further more, he should find the exact and of most concerns of these collectors and give a more reliable conclusion toward the value of these sculptures.

[题干中的大雕像是life-size,不是life-like. 总体来说，主要的错误都把握的满好的，但是不是权威人士啊，不敢妄自评分啊，总之，楼主加油啊～！]


有空看看我的：
https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... e%3D3#pid1768910268

fenghua9801UID: 2191885

我说的那个帖子：

https://bbs.gter.net/viewthre ... Dtype%26typeid%3D59

ljknirvanaUID: 2231819

B2好像有大问题，原文的推理我理解是：
因为模子只能被用于等身雕像，所以Kali的缩微雕像是抽象的而且风格炯异的，所以更能证明了Kali艺术家做等身雕像是用了模子，因为要不然等身雕像也应该是抽象而且风格炯异的
不知大家怎么理解？？！！
高手请指教！！

fenghua9801UID: 2191885

我同意你的观点


在同主题里面有我的一点分析

hudifengUID: 189776

原帖由 ljknirvana 于 2006-8-5 00:33 发表
B2好像有大问题，原文的推理我理解是：
因为模子只能被用于等身雕像，所以Kali的缩微雕像是抽象的而且风格炯异的，所以更能证明了Kali艺术家做等身雕像是用了模子，因为要不然等身雕像也应该是抽象而且风格炯异的 ...

这个arguer本来这个理由就是强词夺理，用来作论据的，这是谬误啊，他又没说等身塑像风格都一样的用mold做出来的，同时是错误类比，细细思考的话

hudifengUID: 189776

GRE作文 中 最好不要用缩写么，诸如have‘t 要写成 have not么？